ReportWire

Tag: National Guard

  • Election Day 2025: Live updates of key races, storylines and ballot measures around the country

    [ad_1]

    Former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who was outraised by the Democrat and failed to earn the endorsement of President Donald Trump.The win flips control of the commonwealth’s governor’s mansion. While local issues and the biographies of the candidates played a strong role in the race, the results also reflect a contest where Trump’s presence loomed.Virginia has a concentration of federal workers in the north and has deeply felt both the impact of the president cutting the workforce and of the government shutdown.Virginia was one of two states, along with New Jersey, where voters were picking a governor on Tuesday. Voters were also selecting a new mayor in New York City, and in California, were deciding whether to approve a new congressional map that is designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats in next year’s midterm elections. Here are the latest time-stamped updates from Election Day 2025 (ET): 8:15 p.m.Results for two high-profile mayoral races have come in.According to AP, Democrat Aftab Pureval has won the Cincinnati mayoral election over Cory Bowman, who is the half-brother of Vice President JD Vance.And in Atlanta, Democrat Andre Dickens won reelection over three challengers.8 p.m.Democrat Abigail Spanberger has won Virginia’s gubernatorial election, becoming the first female governor in the commonwealth’s history, according to AP projections.Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA case officer, defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears.Spanberger ran a mostly moderate campaign, offering a model for Democrats who want the party anchored by center-left candidates.Spanberger tied Earle-Sears to President Donald Trump but kept her arguments mostly on Trump’s economic policy and her support for abortion rights.Notably, Trump did not endorse Earle-Sears.7:30 p.m. Economic worries were the dominant concern as voters cast ballots for Tuesday’s elections, according to preliminary findings from the AP Voter Poll.The results of the expansive survey of more than 17,000 voters in New Jersey, Virginia, California and New York City suggest they are troubled by an economy that seems trapped by higher prices and fewer job opportunities.The economic challenges have played out in different ways at the local level. Most New Jersey voters said property taxes were a “major problem,” while most New York City voters said this about the cost of housing. Most Virginia voters said they’ve felt at least some impact from the recent federal government cuts.7 p.m.Polling locations have closed in Virginia.Polls across the commonwealth’s counties and cities were open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Voters in line at a polling place at 7 p.m. can still cast ballots.Virginia voters are choosing a new governor and lieutenant governor. They’re also deciding whether Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares should get another term or if Democratic challenger Jay Jones should replace him. All 100 seats in the House of Delegates are also up for election.There are well over 6 million registered voters in Virginia. The last time these statewide races were on the ballot in 2021, overall voter turnout was 55%.This year, nearly 1.5 million people have cast absentee ballots, mostly through the mail or in person.Video below: Spanberger makes last push before Tuesday’s election for VA governor6:55 p.m.New York City’s Board of Elections released another turnout update Tuesday evening.As of 6 p.m., 1.7 million people have voted in the mayoral election.That’s the biggest turnout in a New York City mayoral election in at least 30 years. Just under 1.9 million people voted in the 1993 race, when Republican Rudy Giuliani ousted Mayor David Dinkins, a Democrat.6:45 p.m.Here is when polls close in states with key races. New York: 9 p.m.New Jersey: 8 p.m.Virginia: 7 p.m.California: 11 p.m. (8 p.m. PT)6:30 p.m.It’s not a presidential election year or even the midterms, but the stakes for Election Day 2025 remain undeniably high, with outcomes that could leave a lasting impact on the nation’s direction.Will California redefine the congressional landscape ahead of 2026? Could New York City elect a democratic socialist as its next mayor? And how will the perception of the Trump administration impact critical gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia?This week holds the answers to those pressing questions. Here’s what you need to know before the results start rolling in Tuesday night.

    Former congresswoman Abigail Spanberger defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who was outraised by the Democrat and failed to earn the endorsement of President Donald Trump.

    The win flips control of the commonwealth’s governor’s mansion. While local issues and the biographies of the candidates played a strong role in the race, the results also reflect a contest where Trump’s presence loomed.

    Virginia has a concentration of federal workers in the north and has deeply felt both the impact of the president cutting the workforce and of the government shutdown.

    Virginia was one of two states, along with New Jersey, where voters were picking a governor on Tuesday. Voters were also selecting a new mayor in New York City, and in California, were deciding whether to approve a new congressional map that is designed to help Democrats win five more U.S. House seats in next year’s midterm elections.

    Here are the latest time-stamped updates from Election Day 2025 (ET):

    8:15 p.m.

    Results for two high-profile mayoral races have come in.

    According to AP, Democrat Aftab Pureval has won the Cincinnati mayoral election over Cory Bowman, who is the half-brother of Vice President JD Vance.

    And in Atlanta, Democrat Andre Dickens won reelection over three challengers.

    8 p.m.

    Democrat Abigail Spanberger has won Virginia’s gubernatorial election, becoming the first female governor in the commonwealth’s history, according to AP projections.

    Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA case officer, defeated Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears.

    Spanberger ran a mostly moderate campaign, offering a model for Democrats who want the party anchored by center-left candidates.

    Spanberger tied Earle-Sears to President Donald Trump but kept her arguments mostly on Trump’s economic policy and her support for abortion rights.

    Notably, Trump did not endorse Earle-Sears.

    7:30 p.m.

    Economic worries were the dominant concern as voters cast ballots for Tuesday’s elections, according to preliminary findings from the AP Voter Poll.

    The results of the expansive survey of more than 17,000 voters in New Jersey, Virginia, California and New York City suggest they are troubled by an economy that seems trapped by higher prices and fewer job opportunities.

    The economic challenges have played out in different ways at the local level. Most New Jersey voters said property taxes were a “major problem,” while most New York City voters said this about the cost of housing. Most Virginia voters said they’ve felt at least some impact from the recent federal government cuts.

    7 p.m.

    Polling locations have closed in Virginia.

    Polls across the commonwealth’s counties and cities were open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Voters in line at a polling place at 7 p.m. can still cast ballots.

    Virginia voters are choosing a new governor and lieutenant governor. They’re also deciding whether Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares should get another term or if Democratic challenger Jay Jones should replace him. All 100 seats in the House of Delegates are also up for election.

    There are well over 6 million registered voters in Virginia. The last time these statewide races were on the ballot in 2021, overall voter turnout was 55%.

    This year, nearly 1.5 million people have cast absentee ballots, mostly through the mail or in person.

    Video below: Spanberger makes last push before Tuesday’s election for VA governor

    6:55 p.m.

    New York City’s Board of Elections released another turnout update Tuesday evening.

    As of 6 p.m., 1.7 million people have voted in the mayoral election.

    That’s the biggest turnout in a New York City mayoral election in at least 30 years. Just under 1.9 million people voted in the 1993 race, when Republican Rudy Giuliani ousted Mayor David Dinkins, a Democrat.

    6:45 p.m.

    Here is when polls close in states with key races.

    New York: 9 p.m.

    New Jersey: 8 p.m.

    Virginia: 7 p.m.

    California: 11 p.m. (8 p.m. PT)

    6:30 p.m.

    It’s not a presidential election year or even the midterms, but the stakes for Election Day 2025 remain undeniably high, with outcomes that could leave a lasting impact on the nation’s direction.

    Will California redefine the congressional landscape ahead of 2026? Could New York City elect a democratic socialist as its next mayor? And how will the perception of the Trump administration impact critical gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia?

    This week holds the answers to those pressing questions. Here’s what you need to know before the results start rolling in Tuesday night.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Trump’s ‘60 Minutes’ interview

    [ad_1]

    In his first “60 Minutes” interview in five years, President Donald Trump misled about his administration’s deportation strategy and his record on grocery prices. 

    The nearly 90-minute interview came a year after he successfully sued CBS’ parent company over its editing of a Kamala Harris interview, netting a $16 million settlement. The network broadcast an edited 28-minute version of the Trump interview that covered trade with China, nuclear weapons testing and the federal government shutdown. 

    When asked about his plan to end the shutdown, Trump rejected possible negotiations with Democrats over expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies and said Republicans will “keep voting” on continuing resolutions that have failed in the Senate.

    When “60 Minutes” contributing correspondent Norah O’Donnell asked Trump about his administration’s immigration enforcement tactics — referring to agents tackling a mother, releasing tear gas in Chicago neighborhoods and smashing car windows — Trump was unapologetic. He said the raids “haven’t gone far enough.” 

    A former New Yorker, Trump weighed in on the Nov. 4 New York City mayoral race, saying he preferred “bad Democrat” former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent, over the frontrunner, state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee.

    CBS released a 1-hour, 13-minute version of the interview on YouTube as well as a full online transcript. We fact-checked Trump’s statements from the network broadcast version of the interview, and noted when relevant portions had been edited out.

    Said he did not instruct the Justice Department “in any way, shape or form” to pursue his political enemies.

    Trump has publicly called on Justice Department officials to prosecute people he perceives as political enemies. 

    In a Sept. 20 Truth Social post, he asked Pam Bondi, his attorney general, to take action against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Democratic U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff.

    “I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

    The Wall Street Journal reported the post was intended to be a private message to Bondi.

    Trump doubled down after he was asked about the post later that day.  

    The Justice Department indicted Comey on Sept. 25 on charges of making a false statement and obstruction related to 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee; he has pleaded not guilty. The department indicted James on Oct. 9 on one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution; she has pleaded not guilty. And on Oct. 16, former Trump national security adviser John Bolton was indicted on charges of unlawfully retaining and transmitting classified information, an investigation that was inherited from the Biden administration; Bolton has pleaded not guilty.

    New York City mayoral candidate Mamdani talks to a pedestrian in New York, Oct. 27. (AP)

    Mamdani is a “communist, not a socialist. Communist.” 

    That’s False.

    Mamdani describes himself as a democratic socialist, which in the U.S. generally refers to someone who believes in a political system with generous social insurance programs such as heavily subsidized child care and high tax rates to pay for education and health care.

    Mamdani’s mayoral platform proposes making New York City more affordable, including via free buses and child care, rent controlled apartments and city-owned grocery stores. That is not akin to communism, a system in which the government controls the means of production and takes over private businesses. Mamdani has not called for the elimination of private ownership in his mayoral campaign.

    “Do you know that I could use (the Insurrection Act) immediately and no judge can even challenge you on that? … The Insurrection Act has been used routinely by presidents.”

    This is exaggerated. Legal experts have previously told PolitiFact courts can rule on the legality of invoking the Insurrection Act, although courts have historically deferred to presidents’ use of the act. Invoking the Insurrection Act — a centuries-old set of laws that allow the president to deploy federal military personnel domestically to suppress rebellion and enforce civilian law — isn’t as commonplace as Trump made it out to be. 

    In the full interview, Trump told O’Donnell almost 50% of presidents have used the act and “some of the presidents, recent ones, have used it 28 times.”

    The Insurrection Act has been used on 30 occasions in U.S. history, most more than 100 years ago, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Seventeen of the country’s 45 presidents, about 37%, have officially invoked it.

    No president has invoked the act 28 times. Former President Ulysses S. Grant invoked the law six times in the 1870s — the most of any president — as white supremacist groups violently revolted after the Civil War.

    The most recent invocation came in 1992 after riots broke out in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King.


    Two National Guardsmen stand guard outside a burning donut shop in Los Angeles April 30, 1992. The National Guard was called in to aid police during the second day of rioting in the city. (AP)

    Asked about his campaign promise to deport the “worst of the worst,” Trump said, “That’s what we’re doing.” 

    This needs context. More than 70% of immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement — nearly 60,000 — as of Sept. 21 had no criminal convictions, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a Syracuse University research organization.

    The federal government doesn’t specify what crimes the 28% of immigrants with criminal convictions committed. The list can include serious felonies, immigration violations such as illegal entry and minor traffic violations.

    O’Donnell pushed back, saying the Trump administration had deported landscapers, nannies, construction workers and farmers who aren’t criminals.

    “No, landscapers who are criminals,” Trump said.

    News organizations have reported numerous cases of immigrants with no criminal records who federal immigration agents have detained including landscapers, the father of three U.S. Marines, day laborers and farmworkers. 

    Speaking about the government shutdown, “The problem is (Democrats) want to give money to prisoners, to drug dealers, to all these millions of people that were allowed to come in with an open border from Biden.”

    That’s False.

    The Democrats’ government funding proposal would not give federally funded health care to immigrants illegally in the U.S., who are already largely ineligible for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

    The Democrats’ proposal would not change that. Instead, Democrats want to restore access to certain health care programs for legal immigrants, such as refugees and people granted asylum, who lost access under the Republican tax and spending law that was signed into law in July.

    That law also reduced funding for a Medicaid program that reimburses hospitals for emergency care provided to immigrants who would be eligible for Medicaid if not for their immigration status. The Democrats want to revert to previous funding levels. The program represented less than 1% of total Medicaid spending in fiscal year 2023, according to KFF, a health think tank.

    In the full interview, Trump said, “I don’t want to give $1.5 trillion to prisoners and drug dealers and the people that came into our country from mental institutions.”

    One group estimated that the Democratic proposal would add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade; that doesn’t mean Democrats are proposing to spend $1.5 trillion on any single program, especially not for immigrants illegally in the U.S. 

    There is no evidence other countries, including Venezuela, sent people from “mental institutions” to the U.S. 

    “We have more nuclear weapons than any other country.”

    By the numbers, Russia is ahead of the U.S. But countries keep exact numbers secret, and there are different ways to count weapons.

    Counting nuclear weapons inventories, including active stockpiles and retired warheads, Russia has 5,459, ahead of the U.S. with 5,177, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a group that tracks nuclear policy.

    Hans M. Kristensen, who works for the organization, said Russia has a wider lead over the U.S. on its active stockpile. The U.S. has more retired warheads than Russia.

    Trump could be citing a separate metric — an estimate that the U.S. has 1,670 deployed strategic weapons and 100 nonstrategic weapons, for a total of 1,770. This outpaces Russia’s estimated 1,718 deployed strategic weapons. Deployed strategic warheads are deployed on intercontinental missiles and at heavy bomber bases, while nonstrategic warheads are deployed with operational short-range delivery systems. 

    A simple weapons count “is deeply ridiculous,” because the size of either the U.S. or the Russian arsenal would create massive devastation, said Richard Nephew, a Columbia University weapons expert.

    “Right now, (grocery prices are) going down, other than beef.”

    Trump’s effort to fact-check O’Donnell, who said grocery prices were up, is mostly inaccurate. A few major grocery items have had price decreases under Trump, but most have not.

    Many grocery items have seen price increases between December 2024, the last full month of Joe Biden’s presidency, and September 2025, the most recent month for which Bureau of Labor Statistics data is available.

    Grocery prices overall have increased by almost 2%. Trump correctly noted beef’s price rise: Ground beef prices are up almost 13%, and steaks are up by more than 15%.

    But the price increases go beyond that. Bacon is up by more than 5%; the combined category of meats, poultry, fish and eggs is up by 4%; fruits and vegetables are up by almost 1%; coffee is up by more than 15%; sugar and sweets are up by more than 4%; and dairy products are up by a fraction of a percent.

    Two notable price declines have come from eggs (down 16%, after the sector recovered from bird flu-related shortages) and bread (down about 2%).

    In a portion of the interview not broadcast, Trump falsely said the U.S. has “no inflation” and “we’re down to 2%, even less than 2%.” In September, the year-over-year inflation rate was 3%, higher than it was during the final six months of Biden’s term.


    Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speak after Netanyahu addressed the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, Oct. 13 in Jerusalem. (AP)

    “Before the ninth month (of my presidency) I stopped eight wars.” 

    Trump has helped broker temporary peace deals in conflicts around the world, but his repeated claim that he has “stopped” eight wars is exaggerated.

    The U.S. was involved in recently eased conflicts between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and Armenia and Azerbaijan — but these were mostly incremental accords, and some leaders dispute the extent of Trump’s role. 

    Peace has not held in other conflicts. The U.S. was involved in a temporary peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, but violence in the region resumed, with hundreds of civilians killed since the deal’s June signing. After Trump helped broker a deal between Cambodia and Thailand, the countries accused each other of ceasefire violations that have led to violent skirmishes.

    A standoff between Egypt and Ethiopia over an Ethiopian dam on the Nile remains unresolved, and it’s closer to a diplomatic dispute than a military clash. In the case of Kosovo and Serbia, we found little evidence of brewing conflict. 

    The Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage agreement involves multiple stages. Israel accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire and ordered strikes in the Gaza Strip that killed over 100 Palestinians before announcing that the ceasefire was back on.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mexican mayor killed during Day of the Dead celebrations

    [ad_1]

    A mayor in Mexico’s western state of Michoacan was shot dead in a plaza in front of dozens of people who had gathered for Day of the Dead festivities, authorities said.Local politicians in Mexico are frequently victims of political and organized crime violence.The mayor of the Uruapan municipality, Carlos Alberto Manzo Rodríguez, was gunned down Saturday night in the town’s historic center. He was rushed to a hospital, where he later died, according to state prosecutor Carlos Torres Piña.A city council member and a bodyguard were also injured in the attack.The attacker was killed at the scene, Federal Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch told journalists Sunday.The attack on the mayor was carried out by an unidentified man who shot him seven times, García Harfuch said. The weapon was linked to two armed clashes between rival criminal groups operating in the region, he added.“No line of investigation is being ruled out to clarify this cowardly act that took the life of the mayor,” García Harfuch said.Michoacan is one of Mexico’s most violent states and is a battleground among various cartels and criminal groups fighting for control of territory, drug distribution routes and other illicit activities.On Sunday, hundreds of Uruapan residents, dressed in black and holding up photographs of Manzo Rodríguez, took to the town’s streets to accompany the funeral procession and bid farewell to the slain mayor. They chanted “Justice! Justice! Out with Morena!,” a reference to the ruling party of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.In recent months, the Uruapan mayor had publicly appealed to Sheinbaum on social media for help to confront the cartels and criminal groups. He had accused Michoacan’s pro-government governor, Alfredo Ramírez Bedolla, and the state police of corruption.At the head of the procession, a man led Manzo Rodríguez’s black horse, with one of the mayor’s signature hats placed on the saddle. A group of musicians, also dressed in black, followed and played mariachi songs.In the narrow streets of the agricultural town, where avocados are the main crop, dozens of police and military officers stood guard around the area.The attack on Manzo Rodríguez, a former Morena legislator, was captured on video and shared on social media. The footage shows dozens of residents and tourists, some in costume and with painted faces, enjoying the event surrounded by hundreds of lit candles, marigold flowers and skull decorations. Then several gunshots ring out and people run for cover.In another video, a person is seen lying on the ground as an official performs CPR while armed police officers guard the area.Manzo Rodríguez had been under protection since December 2024, three months after taking office. His security was reinforced last May with municipal police and 14 National Guard officers, García Harfuch said, without specifying what prompted the measure.Manzo Rodríguez, who some nicknamed “The Mexican Bukele” in reference to the tough security policies of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, took office as mayor of Uruapan after winning that year’s midterm elections with an independent movement.The mayor’s killing follows the death of Salvador Bastidas, mayor of the municipality of Tacambaro, also in Michoacan. Bastidas was killed in June along with his bodyguard as he arrived at his home in the town’s Centro neighborhood.In October 2024, journalist Mauricio Cruz Solís was also shot in Uruapan shortly after interviewing Manzo Rodríguez.

    URUAPAN, MEXICO —

    A mayor in Mexico’s western state of Michoacan was shot dead in a plaza in front of dozens of people who had gathered for Day of the Dead festivities, authorities said.

    Local politicians in Mexico are frequently victims of political and organized crime violence.

    The mayor of the Uruapan municipality, Carlos Alberto Manzo Rodríguez, was gunned down Saturday night in the town’s historic center. He was rushed to a hospital, where he later died, according to state prosecutor Carlos Torres Piña.

    A city council member and a bodyguard were also injured in the attack.

    The attacker was killed at the scene, Federal Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch told journalists Sunday.

    The attack on the mayor was carried out by an unidentified man who shot him seven times, García Harfuch said. The weapon was linked to two armed clashes between rival criminal groups operating in the region, he added.

    “No line of investigation is being ruled out to clarify this cowardly act that took the life of the mayor,” García Harfuch said.

    Michoacan is one of Mexico’s most violent states and is a battleground among various cartels and criminal groups fighting for control of territory, drug distribution routes and other illicit activities.

    On Sunday, hundreds of Uruapan residents, dressed in black and holding up photographs of Manzo Rodríguez, took to the town’s streets to accompany the funeral procession and bid farewell to the slain mayor. They chanted “Justice! Justice! Out with Morena!,” a reference to the ruling party of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.

    In recent months, the Uruapan mayor had publicly appealed to Sheinbaum on social media for help to confront the cartels and criminal groups. He had accused Michoacan’s pro-government governor, Alfredo Ramírez Bedolla, and the state police of corruption.

    At the head of the procession, a man led Manzo Rodríguez’s black horse, with one of the mayor’s signature hats placed on the saddle. A group of musicians, also dressed in black, followed and played mariachi songs.

    In the narrow streets of the agricultural town, where avocados are the main crop, dozens of police and military officers stood guard around the area.

    The attack on Manzo Rodríguez, a former Morena legislator, was captured on video and shared on social media. The footage shows dozens of residents and tourists, some in costume and with painted faces, enjoying the event surrounded by hundreds of lit candles, marigold flowers and skull decorations. Then several gunshots ring out and people run for cover.

    In another video, a person is seen lying on the ground as an official performs CPR while armed police officers guard the area.

    Manzo Rodríguez had been under protection since December 2024, three months after taking office. His security was reinforced last May with municipal police and 14 National Guard officers, García Harfuch said, without specifying what prompted the measure.

    Manzo Rodríguez, who some nicknamed “The Mexican Bukele” in reference to the tough security policies of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, took office as mayor of Uruapan after winning that year’s midterm elections with an independent movement.

    The mayor’s killing follows the death of Salvador Bastidas, mayor of the municipality of Tacambaro, also in Michoacan. Bastidas was killed in June along with his bodyguard as he arrived at his home in the town’s Centro neighborhood.

    In October 2024, journalist Mauricio Cruz Solís was also shot in Uruapan shortly after interviewing Manzo Rodríguez.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge extends block on National Guard deployment to Portland

    [ad_1]

    A judge has extended her order blocking President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, dealing a setback to the White House as it tries to send the military to cities over the objection of their Democratic leaders.

    Newsweek contacted the White House for comment by emails after office hours.

    Why It Matters

    Trump has deployed federalized National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., to tackle what he says is surging crime and he is attempting to do the same in several other Democrat-run cities against the wishes of the local governments.  

    His efforts have suffered a series of legal blows, including a federal court blocking the administration from federalizing the Illinois National Guard ahead of a planned deployment to Chicago. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress, the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy.

    At the heart of the debate is the extent of the president’s constitutional authority to deploy military forces domestically over the objects of city and state governments.

    What To Know 

    U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut’s decision late on Sunday comes after a three-day hearing that saw arguments over whether the Trump administration had violated the law by federalizing and trying to deploy Oregon and California troops to Portland.

    She said she would continue to block the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Oregon until 5 p.m. on Friday, November 7, according to a copy of her decision reviewed by Newsweek.

    Protests have erupted on the streets of Portland and elsewhere in opposition to the federal government’s immigration enforcement. Trump has referred to the protesters, whose focus in Portland has been the city’s ICE facility, as “agitators, insurrectionists.”

    During last week’s trial, the legal team for the city and the states of Oregon and California argued that the situation in Portland has been manageable by local police, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

    Lawyers for the Trump administration said demonstrators had broken significant laws, a Justice Department attorney said, and that the president did not have to wait for the gatherings to grow into a full-fledged rebellion.

    Immergut said in her ruling: “Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel.” 

    She said most of the violence appeared to be between protesters and counterprotesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.

    What People Are Saying

    Karin Immergut, U.S. District Court judge for Oregon, wrote in her ruling: “The violence that did occur during this time period predominately involved violence between protesters and counterprotesters, not violence against federal officers or the ICE facility.”

    What Happens Next

    Friday’s ruling prevents the Trump administration deploying National Guard personnel to Portland until 5 p.m. on Friday. It remains to be seen whether they will be legally permitted to make such a deployment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ninth Circuit To Rehear National Guard Case; Oregon AG Welcomes Review – KXL

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has voted to rehear the federal government’s appeal in the ongoing National Guard case, granting an en banc review before a larger panel of judges.

    The decision vacates an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel and means that an expanded group of 11 judges will now reconsider the issues in the case. Both temporary restraining orders remain in effect as proceedings continue.

    Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield praised the court’s move, saying it reinforces constitutional limits on executive power.

    “This ruling shows the truth matters and that the courts are working to hold this administration accountable,” Rayfield said in a statement. “The Constitution limits the president’s power, and Oregon’s communities cannot be treated as a training ground for unchecked federal authority.”

    Rayfield added that the decision “sends a clear message” that the president cannot deploy military forces into U.S. cities unnecessarily. He said Oregon will continue to defend its “laws, values, and sovereignty” as the case moves forward.

    A related trial over the National Guard deployment in Oregon is set to begin Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Portland.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • DC Man Sues Over His Arrest for Playing Darth Vader Music at National Guard

    [ad_1]

    A Washington D.C. man was arrested last month for following National Guard troops around while playing “The Imperial March,” Darth Vader’s theme song in the Star Wars films. But now that man is suing, with the help of the ACLU, because he says his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated while he engaged in peaceful protest.

    Sam O’Hara, 35, was walking in the Logan Circle neighborhood of D.C. on Sept. 11 when he spotted National Guard troops patrolling the area. O’Hara started playing “The Imperial March” from his phone while walking behind them and started filming it for his TikTok account. But “in less than two minutes,” according to the lawsuit, Ohio National Guard member Sgt. Devon Beck turned around and threatened to call the local cops to “handle” him if O’Hara didn’t stop.

    O’Hara didn’t stop, so that’s what Beck did. He called the Metropolitan Police Department, who came and put O’Hara in handcuffs. He remained “tightly handcuffed” for about 15-20 minutes, according to the suit.

    The four MPD officers who made the arrest, Tiffany Brown, JM Campbell, Edward Reyes-Benigno, and Alfonso Lopez Martinez, are all named in the lawsuit, which was filed with help from the DC chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

    O’Hara has “experienced significant anxiety around law enforcement and feels less safe in his neighborhood,” according to the suit, and the “overly tight handcuffs” reportedly left marks on his wrists. He also had pain in his arms and shoulders the next morning, according to the suit. O’Hara has had two surgeries on his left shoulder since 2023.

    The suit includes some jokes about Star Wars, which was probably to be expected:

    The law might have tolerated government conduct of this sort a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. But in the here and now, the First Amendment bars government officials from shutting down peaceful protests, and the Fourth Amendment (along with the District’s prohibition on false arrest) bars groundless seizures.

    President Donald Trump has sent a surge of federal agents to cities that he considers to be Democratic and has seen mixed success sending National Guard troops to cities like Portland and Chicago. Judges have flip flopped on whether Trump is allowed to do that, with some finding that he can with others finding he can’t as the cases make their way up the ladder to higher courts. As of this writing, Trump has not been allowed to deploy troops to Portland and Chicago.

    But there’s very little question that Trump has the ability to deploy the National Guard to Washington D.C. because it’s not a state. The president has incredible powers to do many things in D.C. that he really can’t do elsewhere. But the free speech protections of the First Amendment, as well as the protections from unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment, still apply to the entire country—even in D.C.

    Curiously, when Gizmodo went to find the videos that O’Hara has posted to TikTok in order to embed them in this post, we found that the video from Sept. 11 had been slapped with the warning: “This post may not be comfortable for some audiences. Log in to make the most of your experience.”

    There’s nothing graphic about the video and it’s unclear why TikTok wouldn’t allow the video to be embedded, but the local TV news outlet WUSA9 has a video that also shows you what happened, including O’Hara’s arrest.

    O’Hara hasn’t stopped filming National Guard troops around D.C. since his arrest. There are plenty of videos at his account @freedc20009.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Novak

    Source link

  • ‘Make or break moment’: Supreme Court is set to rule on Trump using troops in U.S. cities

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

    A decision could come at any time.

    And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

    Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

    The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

    Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

    That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

    Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

    Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

    When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

    Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

    That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

    “Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

    “On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

    “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

    Conservatives cite civil rights examples

    Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

    “Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

    He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

    The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

    Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

    While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

    Lower courts have blocked deployments

    Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

    Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

    In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

    But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

    A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

    But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

    “The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

    Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

    “There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

    U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

    (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

    “On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

    He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

    “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

    He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Some DC residents, wary of Trump’s motives, uneasily back parts of the National Guard deployment – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    The mixed feelings over the National Guard deployment in D.C. have forced local officials to strike a balance between opposing what they see as a flagrant violation of the city’s already limited autonomy and the acknowledgment that the district could use the help.

    DC Federal Intervention National Guard soldiers patrol on the National Mall near the U.S. Capitol, Friday, Oct. 17, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)

    AP Photo/Rahmat Gul

    DC Federal Intervention In this image provided by Andy Koester, National Guard soldiers and other law enforcement agencies work to get a cat, top right, out of a tree in Lincoln Park in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. (Andy Koester via AP)

    Andy Koester via AP

    DC Federal Enforcement National Guard FILE – People talk with National Guard soldiers on the Ellipse, with the White House in the background, Oct. 17, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)

    AP Photo/Rahmat Gul, File

    DC Federal Enforcement National Guard FILE – Steve DeBoer, left, and Harris Kruse, right, talk with members of the District of Columbia National Guard patrolling the area near Nationals Park on game day in Washington, Aug. 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File)

    AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File

    DC Federal Enforcement National Guard FILE – People talk with a member of the District of Columbia National Guard as they patrol the area outside Nationals Park in Washington, Aug. 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)

    AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.

    DC Federal Enforcement National Guard Neighborhood resident and volunteer, Valencia Mohammed, center, talks to D.C. National Guard interim commander Army Brig. Gen. Leland Blanchard II, right, and Lt. Col. Marcus Hunt, left, about cleanup efforts at Fort Stevens Recreation Center, Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Washington. Mohammed requested the cleanup. Marcus Hickman, Anacostia ANC Commisioner, is seen rear. (AP Photo/Gary Fields)

    AP Photo/Gary Fields

    DC Federal Enforcement National Guard D.C. National Guard members clean up the park around Fort Stevens Recreation Center, Saturday, Oct. 11, 2025, in Washington. News of the cleanup sparked a community debate over the presence of the Guard. (AP Photo/Gary Fields)

    AP Photo/Gary Fields

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The soldiers and airmen stood at the back of the black minivan, arming themselves — with black garbage bags and red-handled trash pickers — and headed for the park around the recreation center.

    For the Washington, D.C., contingent of the National Guard deployed to the nation’s capital, it marked their 119th beautification project since the unit was called up in August as part of President Donald Trump’s federal law enforcement intervention. Their work has included cleaning graffiti in parks, picking up trash and refurbishing a recreation center. There are plans to help a school reading program in an often overlooked area of the city.

    The hundreds of National Guard troops still deployed to the city — at times armed — have unnerved some residents, who see in them the manifestation of presidential overreach on law enforcement. And while there is deep mistrust over the motives of the overall deployment, others view the Guard in Washington, especially its local contingent’s focus on community improvement efforts, with a measure of approval.

    “I’m glad for the help,” said Sabir Abdul, 68, a resident who regularly cleans the trash and debris in the park around the Fort Stevens Recreation Center in Northwest D.C. “They have lives, but now they are here, helping us.”

    The mixed feelings over the Guard deployment have forced local officials to strike a balance between opposing what they see as a flagrant violation of the city’s already limited autonomy and the acknowledgment that the district could use the help that at least the D.C. National Guard contingent has been providing.

    A lawsuit filed by D.C.’s attorney general challenging the deployment — part of a wave of legal action in multiple cities facing their own federal law enforcement interventions — will be heard on Friday.

    The Guard deployment in DC is among several around the country

    Hundreds of National Guard troops have been in Washington, D.C., since Trump issued an emergency order in August, which launched what he said was a crime-fighting mission that also included the federal takeover of the local police department. The order expired last month, but the roughly 2,000 National Guard troops from D.C. and eight states remain in the city, with most contingents saying they plan to withdraw by the end of November.

    The troops have become a fixture of the city, patrolling metro stations and neighborhoods and supporting other federal law enforcement agencies in operations that have led to hundreds of arrests and sparked fear in many communities, especially among immigrants. Trump, a Republican, has praised the campaign as having reduced crime rates, which were already falling.

    D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat whose city budget and laws are determined by Congress, has walked a fine line between appeasing Trump and pushing back on the deployment. She has acknowledged that the campaign has helped push down crime, while arguing that the out-of-state National Guard deployment has not been “an efficient use of those resources.”

    In a recent brief filed in the D.C. legal case, Attorney General Brian Schwalb argued that the Guard units are operating “as a federal military police force.” The document also indicated that there were plans for the D.C. Guard to potentially remain in the city at least through next summer.

    For some, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

    Grappling with mixed feelings about the Guard

    In Ward 8, which is in the historic but underserved area of the district east of the Anacostia River, local officials have taken up an invitation from the D.C. Guard to help with community improvement despite their overall opposition to the presence of armed National Guard troops in the city.

    Advisory neighborhood commission member Joseph Johnson said troops from the local Guard unit have been to his ward multiple times, “helping where we need help,” including cleaning around a school, as well as several areas in the Anacostia neighborhood. Community members have seen that “these are people just like them. They live here in our communities for the most part.”

    Local officials have grappled over whether the help the local unit is offering can be separated from the Trump administration’s increasing threats to use uniformed troops on the streets of American cities. Some have zero tolerance, concerned that supporting even the local Guard’s beautification efforts can be seen as a tacit endorsement of Trump’s use of federal troops in supporting law enforcement activities.

    “Trump is testing the system to see how far he can really go,” Johnson said.

    The D.C. Guard contingent, which is controlled by the president, has been focused on quality of life issues in the city because many of the troops come from the communities they are now working in, said D.C. Guard interim commanding officer Brig. Gen. Leland Blanchard II.

    Blanchard said the deployment would go on “until the president determines it’s time for us to go do something different.”

    “We absolutely want to continue to partner with our own city, our own people here in the District of Columbia,” he told The Associated Press.

    A city park embodies the tensions over the Guard

    In the diverse Shepherd Park neighborhood, news that the Guard was arriving for cleaning efforts sparked a firestorm of opposition in community social media groups. Neighborhood commissioner Paula Edwards was forced to explain that no local official had invited them.

    “We feel that their presence is frightening to many of our constituents,” Edwards said in an interview. She said the situation was complex because Guard members are following orders. She also said the D.C. Guard members were distinct from other state contingents because they are aware of the nuances and character of the city. She said public attitudes in her community ranged from “let the troops clean the park” to some who seek to shame them.

    Edwards said under different circumstances she would be glad to see the Guard there, but “only after this deployment ends.”

    Valencia Mohammed, who leads a local tenants’ association, said she had reached out to the Guard to request help to clean up. She simply wanted the park clean, including potentially dangerous items that could harm children. Mohammed, 74, said she usually cleaned the park, along with other older residents.

    She said she believed local officials opposed the Guard’s cleanup efforts because they “did not want to seem supporting any efforts by Trump, even if it was good for the community.”

    “I just wanted our park beautified,” she said, “which is something none of the commissioners have done.”

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the District of Columbia at https://apnews.com/hub/district-of-columbia.

    Copyright
    © 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

    [ad_2]

    WTOP Staff

    Source link

  • Have half of US presidents invoked the Insurrection Act?

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump says he still has options on the table for sending military into Chicago, where local leaders and courts have so far blocked his efforts to send the National Guard.

    “Don’t forget I can use the Insurrection Act. Fifty percent of the presidents, almost, have used that. And that’s unquestioned power,” Trump said during an Oct. 19 Fox News interview. “I choose not to.”

    Trump has said if courts rule against his efforts to use a rarely used statute to deploy National Guard troops, he would consider invoking the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old set of laws that allow the president to deploy federal military personnel domestically to suppress rebellion and enforce civilian law.

    Insurrection Act invocations aren’t as commonplace as Trump made them out to be. 

    The act has been used on 30 occasions in U.S. history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Seventeen of the country’s 45 presidents, about 37%, have officially invoked it. The act hasn’t been used in more than 30 years.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Trump is wrong to say the act gives him unquestioned power, legal experts said. Due process rights under the constitution remain in place and courts can rule on the invocation’s legality even if they’ve been historically deferential to a president’s use of the law. His statement also ignores critical context about the conditions under which the act has previously been invoked. 

    The act “has been used very rarely and almost exclusively in circumstances where there would be popular acknowledgement that there is an ongoing rebellion or some kind of ongoing civil conflict that is of a pretty profound nature,” Bernadette Meyler, Stanford University law professor, said. 

    Protests against immigration enforcement and crime aren’t “the kind of trigger that ever has been used for invoking the Insurrection Act,” she said.

    The White House did not respond to PolitiFact’s request for comment.

    When has the Act been invoked and for what purposes?

    Most of the Insurrection Act’s invocations took place more than 100 years ago. 

    Former President Ulysses S. Grant invoked the law six times in the 1870s — the most of any president — as white supremacist groups violently revolted after the Civil War. (Trump has said one president used the law “28 times,” without naming him. That’s inaccurate.)

    From 1962 to 1963, former President John F. Kennedy used the Insurrection Act three times to combat local governments that were forcibly opposing school desegregation following the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. 

    In this Oct. 15, 1957, file photo, seven of nine black students walk onto the campus of Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., with a National Guard officer as an escort as other troops watch. (AP)

    These cases represent a “defiance of federal law by state governments,” Tung Yin, professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School, told PolitiFact.

    “It’s not Portland police out there that are obstructing ICE or Oregon troops being deployed by Oregon Gov. (Tina) Kotek to interfere with ICE,” Yin said. “So I think that just makes the context look different.”

    The most recent invocation came in 1992, when then-California Gov. Pete Wilson requested military support from President George H.W. Bush after riots broke out following the acquittal of four white police officers in the beating of Black motorist Rodney King. 

    This is an example of a case “where local and state officials are completely and totally overwhelmed by the scale and scope of violence,” Christopher Mirasola, University of Houston Law Center assistant professor, said. 

    This level of mayhem is not in cities Trump has targeted for National Guard deployment, such as Portland and Chicago, where private citizens are protesting against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Two National guardsmen stand guard outside a burning donut shop at Martin Luther King Boulevard and Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles April 30, 1992. The National Guard was called in to aid police during the second day of rioting in the city. (AP)

    Insurrection Act doesn’t give Trump ‘unquestioned power’

    Trump also has made inaccurate claims about the scope of his authority when the Insurrection Act is in effect.

    It doesn’t give the president “unquestioned power,” as Trump said.

    “Presidents do not have unquestioned authority. They have limited authority that is available to them in very extraordinary circumstances, when there’s an insurrection,” Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government, said.

    Even during the Insurrection Act, people’s constitutional due process rights are protected, Mirasola said. Due process generally refers to the government’s requirement to follow fair procedures and laws. 

    Trump also exaggerated Oct. 19 when he told reporters there are “no more court cases” when the act is invoked. Courts can rule on whether the use of the Insurrection Act is legal, Meyler said. However, the act is broadly written and doesn’t define terms such as “insurrection” or “rebellion.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that the president has exclusive power to decide whether a situation represents an acceptable reason to invoke the law.

    Our ruling

    Trump said, “Fifty percent of the presidents, almost, have used” the Insurrection Act, “and that’s unquestioned power.” 

    The act has been used by 17, or 37%, of U.S. presidents. Most of those 30 invocations took place more than 100 years ago, so it’s not as frequent as Trump made it seem. 

    Legal experts said Trump’s focus on the numbers omits context about his proposed use of the act to stop protesting and crime. The act has been invoked to stop rebellions, white supremacist revolts and force state governments to follow federal laws regarding desegregation. The last president to use the act, Bush in 1992, did so in California at the request of the governor after riots broke out in Los Angeles.

    He’s also wrong to say the law gives him “unquestioned power.” Due process rights under the constitution remain in place and courts can rule on the invocation’s legality, even if they’ve been historically deferential to a president’s use of the act.

    His statement ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the statement Mostly False.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DC pushes back on indefinite deployment of National Guard – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    D.C. is pushing back against what it argues is an illegal and indefinite deployment of National Guard troops, under federal control, in the nation’s capital.

    D.C. is pushing back against what it argues is an illegal and indefinite deployment of National Guard troops, under federal control, in the nation’s capital.

    Court documents suggest troops have been instructed to prepare for “long-term persistent presence” in the District, possibly though next summer in conjunction with the “America 250” celebration.

    D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed the supplemental brief Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    He’s expected to go before a federal judge Friday to ask the court to issue an injunction to stop the National Guard deployment and restore local control over law enforcement.

    Federal command over National Guard is unconstitutional, filing argues

    According to the brief, National Guard personnel stationed across the District, including out-of-state troops, are operating under the command of the D.C. National Guard and the Defense Department.

    That’s opposed to taking direction from their respective governors or generals.

    According to the brief, federal command of those troops in state militia violates the Militia Clauses of the Constitution and the statutes governing the National Guard.

    The troops report to a colonel in the D.C. National Guard, who sends updates to out-of-state officials.

    The filing argued the National Guard’s participation in arrests, patrols and warrant executions violates federal law, which restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement.

    District says deployment has strained police, threatened public safety

    D.C. argued the troops’ deployment has impeded on the District’s sovereignty.

    In the brief, the District said the troops’ deployment is “placing burdens” on D.C. and “threatening public safety.”

    Namely, the brief mentions the presence of military vehicles and troops without standard law enforcement training. The dangers posed by large military vehicles have caused the District to give emergency responders extra training to prepare in case of a vehicle accident or fire.

    D.C. police officers have also been impacted by some of those burdens caused by “increased tensions,” according to the filing.

    The troops are operating as Special Deputy U.S. Marshals, which grants them law enforcement authority. Though they are not authorized to make arrests, the filing shows some have engaged in arrests and been given training on “handcuffing techniques,” as well as “weapon retention and takedown defense”

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Small

    Source link

  • MAGA Judges Insist You Shouldn’t Take Trump’s Social Media Too Seriously

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump posts the most bizarre social media content of any world leader in the internet age, from AI videos where he’s dropping literal shit on protesters to fake magical beds that cure all disease. But the president’s staunchest defenders want you to believe that we shouldn’t take any of it too seriously.

    We saw several examples of that attitude Monday, including in an appeals court ruling that insists President Trump should be allowed to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco granted the Trump administration’s motion for a stay in the the case of Oregon v. Trump, with two of the three judges ruling in favor of Trump’s desire to militarize the nation’s cities.

    Trump tried to federalize the Oregon National Guard in late September. But U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut of Oregon temporarily blocked Trump from deploying the guardsmen in early October. Among a host of other considerations, Immergut cited Trump’s posts on Truth Social, which described Portland as “war ravaged” and “under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists.” Trump’s assertions weren’t true, of course, and the judge noted the fact that “nothing in the record suggests that anything of this sort was occurring ‘every night’ outside the Portland ICE building.”

    Both of the judges who sided with Trump on Monday, Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, are appointees of the president. “The district court erred by placing too much weight on statements the President made on social media,” the judges wrote in their opinion, which is available online. The lone dissent was from a Clinton-appointed judge, Susan P. Graber, as immigration law expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick noted on Bluesky.

    The pro-Trump judges made excuses for Trump’s bizarre posts. “Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis to support the statutory requirements,” the Trump-appointed judges wrote.

    It’s a weird thing to see in black and white. These judges are talking about the president, after all, not some teenage shitposter. When the most powerful person in the country blasts something out on Truth Social, you’d expect for people to take it seriously. But his defenders are bending over backwards to insist that his online proclamations don’t matter, even if they’re lies.

    These judges aren’t the only ones. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, expressed a similar sentiment on Monday during a press conference about the government shutdown. Johnson was asked about Trump’s AI shit-bombing video from over the weekend, and he tried to play it off as effective messaging. It was just “satire,” as Johnson saw it.

    “The president uses social media to make a point,” said Johnson. “You can argue he’s probably the most effective person who’s ever used social media for that. He is using satire to make a point.”

    Speaker Johnson defends Trump’s AI video of him dumping feces on protesting Americans: “The president uses social media to make a point. You can argue he’s probably the most effective person who’s ever used social media for that. He is using satire to make a point.”

    [image or embed]

    — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 7:40 AM

    The president’s use of social media is unprecedented in so many ways. Trump is constantly spreading lies and misinformation to millions of followers and those lies are then spread through traditional media until they reach billions of people around the globe.

    In another era, it would’ve been considered weird for an American president to spread such transparent lies on social media. What makes it even more odd is the fact that Trump owns the platform where he’s posting this garbage. It can be easy to forget that Trump owns Truth Social, the platform where he’s spreading those lies on a daily basis. And he has plenty of other businesses up and running that are making him money, from his crypto ventures right down to his idiotic Trump watches.

    Trump’s strange social media presence has become normalized. But so has every other aspect of this administration as it seeks to reshape American life. And it’s clear at this point that MAGA judges are going to keep letting Trump do whatever he wants, all while telling us we’re the weird ones for noticing.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Novak

    Source link

  • Appeals Court Rules National Guard Can Deploy To Portland – KXL

    [ad_1]

    In this Oct. 18, 2021 photo, the Supreme Court is seen in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

    SAN FRANCISCO, CA – A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the Trump administration can deploy National Guard troops in Portland.

    “We conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’” the court said in the ruling.

    The troops are to be used in the protection of federal property, including the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.  It has been the scene of protests for several months.

    Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield quickly responded to the ruling with written statement.

    “(Monday’s) ruling, if allowed to stand, would give the president unilateral power to put Oregon soldiers on our streets with almost no justification. We are on a dangerous path in America,” Rayfield wrote.

    “Oregon joins Judge Graber in urging the full Ninth Circuit to ‘act swiftly’ en banc ‘to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.’  And, like her, we ‘ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little while longer.’

    “Members of the Oregon National Guard are our neighbors, family members, and friends. Their safety is important. As a community, we need to come together and help make sure they are sent home as soon as possible. That means keeping Portland peaceful and safe while our fight in the court moves forward.”

    Oregon Senator Ron Wyden also issued a statement on the ruling.

    “Today’s development is a short-term disappointment, but our ongoing response must be to keep holding Donald Trump and his lackeys in the White House accountable for his authoritarian abuse of power in Oregon,” Wyden said. “As Oregonians, we know that what he and his administration lackeys are plotting to do with federal troops in Oregon is unlawful, unwanted and unnecessary. And I will keep working with local and state officials to ensure Trump does not keep wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on his fascist fever dream that puts lives at risk.

    Senator Jeff Merkley tweeted, “Troops are not wanted or needed in Portland. Let’s be clear: Trump’s sole goal is to stoke violence to justify tightening his authoritarian grip. This fight continues to protect our community.”

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link

  • Video: How Trump Aims to Redefine the Military

    [ad_1]

    new video loaded: How Trump Aims to Redefine the Military

    President Trump and his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, have been reshaping the way the U.S. military works. David Sanger, who covers the White House and national security for The New York Times, explains how Trump has been using the military lately.

    By David E. Sanger, Melanie Bencosme, Laura Salaberry and Pierre Kattar

    October 20, 2025

    [ad_2]

    David E. Sanger, Melanie Bencosme, Laura Salaberry and Pierre Kattar

    Source link

  • Donald Trump makes emergency supreme court appeal

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings blocking the deployment of federalized National Guard troops to Chicago.

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the emergency appeal, the first time Trump’s team has appealed directly to the highest court regarding the deployment of National Guard soldiers to a major city.

    Newsweek contacted the offices of Sauer and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker for comment on Saturday via telephone and email respectively, outside of regular office hours.

    Why it Matters

    The administration’s emergency Supreme Court appeal to deploy National Guard troops in Illinois represents a pivotal clash between executive authority and state sovereignty. The outcome will likely clarify the president’s power to federalize military resources within the U.S., especially in opposition to state and local leaders.

    The case raises major constitutional questions about the use of federal military personnel in civilian law enforcement and the judiciary’s role in checking presidential power, as underscored by recent federal rulings and statements from both sides of the dispute .

    What To Know

    On Friday, President Trump’s administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking to lift lower court orders that prevent the deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois.

    The move comes after a district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals both blocked Trump’s attempted deployment, ruling that the conditions had not been met for such federal intervention under statutory requirements.

    Sauer argued in the Supreme Court filing that troops are necessary in Chicago to address what the administration described as “ongoing and intolerable risks to the lives and safety” of federal agents. The appeal maintains that recent lower court rulings “improperly impinge on the President’s authority and needlessly endanger federal personnel and property.”

    The Trump administration had previously federalized the Illinois National Guard against the opposition of Pritzker, who has decried military deployments in his state.

    Additionally, Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent several hundred National Guard troops to Illinois in support of Trump’s enforcement efforts. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “political opposition is not rebellion,” and concluded that Trump’s claims of uncontrolled violence were not substantiated by evidence.

    This legal battle in Illinois is one of several across the country in which the Trump administration has sought to deploy the National Guard to assist in immigration enforcement or respond to protests—moves that have faced pushback from local leaders in California, Oregon, and elsewhere.

    The Supreme Court has previously sided with Trump on some emergency appeals involving military policy and immigration enforcement.

    What People Are Saying

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated in the administration’s appeal, “The lower court’s ruling improperly impinges on the President’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property.”

    Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, responded on X: “Donald Trump will keep trying to invade Illinois with troops — and we will keep defending the sovereignty of our state. Militarizing our communities against their will is not only un-American but also leads us down a dangerous path for our democracy.”

    Vice President JD Vance told ABC’s This Week: “We think that we have the authority to provide proper safety to our citizens all over the United States, but particularly in Chicago.”

    White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson affirmed: “President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets… We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

    What Happens Next

    The Supreme Court has ordered responses from Illinois and Chicago officials by Monday evening before considering the administration’s request.

    A decision could set a legal precedent regarding the president’s power to federalize National Guard troops and direct federal action in states that oppose such interventions.

    Pending the Supreme Court’s decision, further appeals and ongoing litigation in other states continue to unfold, with the potential for sweeping implications for the balance between federal authority and state sovereignty across the country.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s lawyers ask the Supreme Court to uphold using the National Guard in Chicago

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

    His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

    The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

    Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

    “Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

    Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

    She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

    But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

    “Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

    He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

    “Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

    Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

    “Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

    But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

    “More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

    Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

    Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

    The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Trump Is Trying to Brand Political Opposition As Rebellion

    [ad_1]

    Did the country mandate this?
    Photo: Joshua Lott/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    When looking at judicial review of Trump 2.0’s many audacious power grabs, it’s easy to get bogged down and tangled up in legalisms. Constitutional law is complicated. Federal court procedures are not designed to cope with unprecedented assertions of presidential power advanced almost hourly in places all over the country. An extraordinary percentage of lower court, appellate court, and Supreme Court cases involving the administration’s actions are on emergency dockets. Staid jurists are trying to keep up with a fast-moving Trump train that is very deliberately violating norms in every direction.

    But now a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling that halted a National Guard deployment in Chicago, wrote some sentences that cut through the fog like a powerful search light and reached the real point of contention:

    Political opposition is not rebellion. A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows. Nor does a protest become a rebellion merely because of sporadic and isolated incidents of unlawful activity or even violence committed by rogue participants in the protest. Such conduct exceeds the scope of the First Amendment, of course, and law enforcement has apprehended the perpetrators accordingly. But because rebellions at least use deliberate, organized violence to resist governmental authority, the problematic incidents in this record clearly fall within the considerable day-light between protected speech and rebellion.

    In other words, the judges (one of whom was appointed by Trump, another by George H.W. Bush) slapped down as absurd the administration’s claim that protests against ICE’s activities in Chicago constitute a “rebellion” that warrants otherwise illegal deployments of military force in a U.S. city. And neither Donald Trump nor Pete Hegseth nor Kristi Noem nor Tom Homan nor Pam Bondi can turn these protests into the equivalent of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Civil War, or a foreign invasion. Nor can Texas governor Greg Abbott, who is eager to send his own National Guard units to Democrat-governed Illinois in what amounts to a war between the states.

    It’s increasingly clear that treating political opposition as a rebellion is at the heart of the administration’s legal case for the militarization of political conflict that goes well beyond protests against ICE raids. In MAGA-speak circa 2025, the “Democrat Party” is now the “Radical Left,” and everything it does is presumptively illegitimate and probably illegal. Just yesterday White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt bluntly asserted that “the Democrat Party’s main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.” Earlier this week House Speaker Mike Johnson said the peaceful No Kings rally in Washington planned for October 18, which will feature massive displays of Old Glory and countless patriotic gestures, is insurrectionary: “This ‘Hate America’ rally that they have coming up for October 18, the antifa crowd and the pro-Hamas crowd and the Marxists, they’re all going to gather on the Mall.”

    This follows onto the threats of repression broadcast by the president and by his top domestic policy adviser, Stephen Miller, after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Both men blamed this crime by a deranged individual on Trump opponents writ large, with Miller going so far as to suggest that calling his boss “authoritarian” was an illegal incitement to the kind of violence that murdered Kirk, and an act of “terrorism.” Trump’s subsequent executive order called for a literal war on “antifa,” the shadowy and scattered network of protesters, that is useful in the ongoing clampdown precisely because it’s nowhere and everywhere. Meanwhile, his so-called Secretary of War called in the entire leadership of the U.S. armed forces to mobilize them for duty against the “enemy within.” This steady escalation of rhetoric, to be clear, is the logical culmination of the president’s relentless campaign of demonization throughout the 2024 campaign that treated opponents as anti-American, anti-Christian crooks who were deliberately destroying the country and importing millions of criminals to steal elections.

    Suffusing this militant attitude is the pervasive belief in MAGA circles that Trump’s narrow 2024 victory represents a mandate to do whatever he wants. It’s unlikely, in fact, that the swing voters who pulled the lever for Trump because they wanted lower gasoline or grocery prices or better border control bought into the full Trump 2.0 agenda, which is why his job-approval numbers are well underwater. But even if they did buy the whole enchilada, the 49.8 percent of voters who backed Trump do not have the right to revoke the constitutional rights of the remaining 50.2 percent. That would be true, moreover, had the 47th president actually won the “historic landslide” he keeps mendaciously claiming.

    The words of the Seventh Circuit judges really do need to become a rallying cry against the administration’s efforts to use every bit of power it can amass to silence and intimidate opponents and critics. Political opposition is not a rebellion and doesn’t justify a repression that turns half the country into suspected terrorists. This president has more than enough power to pursue his policies without ruling like a king. Enough is enough.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • The Conflict on the Streets of Chicago

    [ad_1]

    There is plenty of antagonism between ICE agents and anti-ICE protesters. But it is hard to conclude that the protesters’ resistance constitutes a rebellion or an insurrection. To many Chicagoans, the warlike atmosphere is the result of the increasing aggression of the federal government. Worthington, among others, has speculated that Trump is looking for a reason to put Chicago in an even tighter vise than it’s already in. “Sometimes I wonder if what the Trump Administration is doing is looking for cities that they know aren’t going to just take it lying down,” he said. “Part of me wonders if they’re not testing out, first, what they can get away with in different places, and, second, how they can provoke and escalate it to a point where we have a serious national crisis on our hands.”

    One day at Broadview, Worthington met Rachel Cohen, a Harvard-trained lawyer who, last March, quit her job at the prestigious firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, just before its leaders cut a deal with the Trump Administration. Since March, Cohen has grown a sizable social-media following for posts that combine organizing rhetoric and legal and political analysis. In her videos, she argues passionately and clearly, with the occasional expletive. In a post about Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s filing against Trump, to block the deployment of the National Guard, she says, “This complaint is fucking incredible; let’s go through it.” In another, she describes Trump’s legal strategy this way: he “loves to just do whatever the fuck he wants as things are litigated.” Cohen agrees with Worthington that the Trump Administration is looking for a pretext. “ICE has come to Broadview and escalated very intentionally,” she told me. “I’ve been hit directly with pepper pellets. Everyone I know who has been there consistently has had some form of really dramatic brutality against them by ICE agents.”

    Conservatives and liberals alike have criticized certain tactics used by protesters—who, in some cases, have taunted officers, tried to block federal vehicles from exiting the Broadview facility, or chased federal agents in their own vehicles, honking their horns to warn that ICE is present. In an interview on NewsNation, the conservative anchor Leland Vittert asked Cohen, “Just from a political standpoint, do you really think that everybody wearing pink painters masks and trying to throw themselves on police cars and standing out there chanting is gonna help your cause?” (Cohen shot back that his question implied he was fine with federal agents tear-gassing protesters.) An editorial in the Chicago Tribune criticized protesters who have physically prevented ICE agents from doing their jobs, saying, “These militant activists are imperiling the far greater number of peaceful protesters striving mightily to make their voices heard without breaking the law.” Cohen told me, “It seems that many people are really determined to dismiss protest tactics that are disruptive, and I think that’s a real shame, because disruptive protest tactics and working within the system need to go hand in hand. I do know that if you give up entirely on working within the system, you guarantee that work within the system will fail.”

    At the U.S. District Court in downtown Chicago, immigration attorneys like Jennifer Peyton and Khiabett Osuna, of Kriezelman Burton & Associates, work within the system to vigorously defend the rights of their clients. They both told me that they’re spending “one thousand per cent” of their time these days representing immigrants who’ve been detained during the current operation. Peyton was, until recently, a judge for the Chicago Immigration Court; Bondi fired her in early July. The termination e-mail that Peyton received didn’t provide a reason for her firing, but she has speculated that it could be because she was on a conservative-watchdog list for opposing Trump’s agenda. After her firing, Peyton accepted a position as partner at Kriezelman Burton. She has since been suing Bondi and Noem for unlawfully initiating the removal of her clients. “To be able to name Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi as defendants, it’s the best fucking feeling in the world,” she told me.

    Osuna is Peyton’s junior colleague, and the daughter of Mexican immigrants. She said that many migrants who call her don’t have a case, and it’s painful to tell them that. “Yes, of course it’s about trying to get them legal relief,” she told me, but it’s also about saying to them, “I’m sorry this is happening to you. You should not be treated this way. You might not be granted asylum, but you have a right to tell your story. I’m gonna walk with you every damn step of the way.” She can successfully intervene in some cases where her clients have been unlawfully detained, and she can help them remain in the Chicago area instead of getting sent somewhere such as Texas. She told me that, these days, she’s focussed on trying to buy her clients time—time to be with their families, to sleep in their own beds, and to get their documents together, and time for either their life circumstances or American immigration policy to change.

    [ad_2]

    Geraldo Cadava

    Source link

  • Bowser doesn’t think it’s legal for National Guard to ‘police Americans on American soil’

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, said she is skeptical that the federal deployment of the National Guard to cities across the country is legal, as President Trump has moved to send troops to respond to crime.

    Speaking Wednesday at the Fortune Most Powerful Women conference in Washington, the mayor was asked about not supporting the use of the National Guard to crackdown on crime.

    “I don’t think it’s legal, let me start there, for the National Guard to police Americans on American soil,” Bowser said.

    The mayor went on to explain how the National Guard in D.C. is under the authority of the president, while a state’s National Guard is typically controlled by the governor.

    DEMOCRATS TRY TO FLIP THE SCRIPT ON ‘STATES’ RIGHTS’ TO DEFY, UPEND TRUMP’S NATIONAL GUARD PLAN

    Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser said she is skeptical that the federal deployment of the National Guard to cities across the country is legal. (Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    “The mission and the way we use the National Guard — unlike most states where a governor can call up the chief of his National Guard or her National Guard — in D.C., our D.C. National Guard reports to the president,” Bowser said.

    “While I can request the National Guard, they are completely federally operated. And so D.C. is a little different than in other places for the D.C. National Guard,” she continued.

    The mayor added: “We use the Guard to respond to emergencies. We use the Guard for large scale events. We do not use the Guard or to police our local laws.”

    In recent months, Trump has boosted the presence of federal law enforcement in Washington, D.C., in an attempt to cut down on crime. Hundreds of federal agents and National Guard troops have been deployed to the streets of D.C. as part of the federal takeover of the district.

    Trump speaks with National Guard and law enforcement personnel

    Hundreds of federal agents and National Guard troops have been deployed to the streets of D.C. as part of the federal takeover of the district. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo)

    Trump has also deployed troops to several other Democratic-led cities, including Chicago. The city, as well as its home of Illinois, took the federal government to court over the deployment.

    A federal appeals court partially returned control of the National Guard in Illinois to the federal government, but it blocked Trump from deploying troops to the streets of Chicago or across Illinois.

    Trump had also deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer to respond to anti-ICE protests sparked by federal immigration raids targeting migrant workers at local businesses. California officials sued over the federal deployment.

    ‘THEY’RE EMBARRASSING US’: NATIONAL GUARD PRESENCE IN DC SPARKS FIERY CAPITOL CLASH

    Texas National Guard personnel seen standing near Chicago

    President Donald Trump has deployed troops to several Democratic-led cities, including Chicago. (AP/Laura Bargfeld)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Bowser said in her remarks on Wednesday that Americans in Washington and across the country should be concerned by what the deployments mean for the nation’s democracy.

    “We should all be concerned about the military being used because it’s a slippery slope,” she said.

    “You use it for crowd control one day, or presence the next day — it’s not a long jump to using it in other ways that could interfere with the very nature of American democracy,” Bowser said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Insurrection Act, plenary power, martial law and more expla

    [ad_1]

    When asked whether President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act, Vice President JD Vance said Trump is “looking at all his options.”

    The decision would allow Trump to deploy the U.S. military domestically for law enforcement purposes without congressional authorization and over the objections of state governors. 

    Vance’s Oct. 12 comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” was just one of many in recent months about Trump’s ambitions to send the National Guard to Democratic cities such as Portland and Chicago.

    But the legal terms being tossed around —  Insurrection Act, plenary authority, martial law, Posse Comitatus Act — might not be familiar to everyone. These terms defy simple definitions after decades of interpretation by the courts. 

    Here, we explain.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    What is the Insurrection Act?

    This 1807 law allows the U.S. president to deploy federal military personnel domestically to suppress rebellion and enforce civilian law.

    Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends another U.S. law that forbids federal troops from conducting civilian law enforcement. A president can invoke the law after determining that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the federal government make it “impracticable to enforce” U.S. law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the law says. In those cases, the Insurrection Act would allow the president to direct federal troops to enforce U.S. laws or stop a rebellion.

    The law is broadly written and doesn’t define terms such as “insurrection” or “rebellion.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that the president has exclusive power to decide whether a situation represents an acceptable reason to invoke the law.

    Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government, previously told PolitiFact the law provides “limited authority” for the president to use the military to respond to “genuine emergencies — a breakdown in regular operational law when things are really falling apart.”

    The Insurrection Act has been formally invoked around 30 times in the U.S. since 1808, including when southern governors refused to integrate schools in the 1950s and ’60s and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of Rodney King, a Black man.

    What is martial law?

    People sometimes conflate martial law with the Insurrection Act. Martial law typically refers to imposing military law on civilians, while the Insurrection Act uses the military to impose civilian law. Martial law is more stringent and has fewer protections than civilian law, experts said.

    The Supreme Court wrote in a 1946 ruling that the term martial law “carries no precise meaning,” and that it wasn’t defined in the Constitution or in an act of Congress. Legal experts told PolitiFact that, because of this, it isn’t clear whether the U.S. president has a legal path to declaring martial law in the way that it’s commonly understood.

    Still, it has been declared in the past. The U.S. imposed martial law in Hawaii after the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law in certain parts of the country during the Civil War.

    The Supreme Court held in 1866 that martial law could be imposed only if civilian courts weren’t functioning.

    The court “more or less found that martial law could only be declared in an active war zone,” Chris Mirasola, University of Houston Law Center assistant professor, told PolitiFact. “The circumstances within which presidents have invoked martial law and that the Supreme Court has understood martial law are incredibly narrow. It would require an active hostility on U.S. territory that prevents civilian legal proceedings from occurring.”

    Trump, who has shown a willingness to challenge constitutional precedent, has continued to muse about using military powers against civilians. Trump told top U.S. military commanders Sept. 30 that the military could be used against the “enemy within” and suggested that some U.S. cities could be used as military “training grounds.”

    What is plenary authority?

    “Plenary authority” is defined by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School as “power that is wide-ranging, broadly construed, and often limitless for all practical purposes.”

    The term made headlines when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller started to say that Trump has “plenary authority” to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. cities in an Oct. 6 CNN interview. Miller abruptly stopped talking and CNN said the disruption was from a technical glitch. But social media users said Miller froze because he mentioned plenary authority.

    When the show returned, Miller finished his answer, saying he was “making the point that under federal law, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has the authority anytime he believes federal resources are insufficient to federalize the National Guard to carry out a mission necessary for public safety.”

    Although the president has broad powers under the Constitution, like issuing pardons for federal crimes, he doesn’t have limitless power. The U.S. government is divided into three branches — legislative, executive and judicial — in order to have checks and balances.

    Title 10 of the U.S. code outlines the role of the country’s armed forces and constrains what the military is allowed to do and what orders the president can lawfully issue.

    It doesn’t include terms like “plenary authority” or “plenary power.” Instead, it says that when the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” and the U.S. faces a foreign invasion, a rebellion, or danger of rebellion, the president “may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any state.”  

    A judge in Oregon has twice blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland; a federal appeals court also blocked the administration from deploying the guard to Chicago, saying troops can remain federalized for now but cannot be deployed.

    Trump officials say the guard is needed to protect federal ICE officers and federal facilities. Trump previously cited section 12406 of Title 10 when he called for National Guard troops to be sent to Los Angeles during immigration protests in June. A federal judge ruled in September the deployment violated the law. The administration is appealing.

    What is the Posse Comitatus Act?

    The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prevents the use of the military as a domestic police force on U.S. soil, with exceptions for the Insurrection Act.

    The phrase “posse comitatus” refers to a group of people called upon by a county sheriff to maintain peace and suppress lawlessness. Think of Western movie depictions of posses of townspeople gathering to catch fugitives. “The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather than civilians as a posse comitatus,” the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive nonprofit policy institute, wrote in 2021.

    As the Posse Comitatus Act has been interpreted by the courts, civilian law-enforcement officials cannot make “direct active use” of military personnel, including using federal military forces, over their citizens to “regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory authority,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

    The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to the National Guard when it is under state authority and the command of a governor; the law’s restrictions apply when the National Guard is federalized by the president. This means the National Guard generally cannot conduct arrests, searches or seizures unless there is an exception, such as the Insurrection Act.

    The only National Guard exception is the District of Columbia’s, which is solely under federal control. 

    What is the National Guard?

    The National Guard is a state-based military force with certain federal responsibilities. The guard often responds to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and civil unrest, and can support U.S. military operations overseas.

    Over 430,000 National Guard members serve in units in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    The National Guard typically operates as a part-time reserve force that can be mobilized for active duty by governors. The guard also helps train foreign allies in over 100 countries under the State Partnership Program. 

    A president in some cases can federalize and take control of a state’s National Guard over the objection of governors for domestic missions and to serve in wars overseas, but it rarely happens without governors’ consent. When the National Guard is federalized, its troops are subject to the same restrictions as federal troops.

    The National Guard has been federally mobilized in the U.S. several times, including in response to the 2020 protests over the murder of George Floyd; the 1992 Los Angeles riots; and civil unrest following the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. 

    The Ohio National Guard’s 1970 deployment to anti-war protests at Kent State University resulted in troops shooting students, killing four people and injuring nine others.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fencing around Broadview ICE facility set to be removed

    [ad_1]

    BROADVIEW, Ill. (WLS) — Fencing around the ICE facility in Broadview is set to be removed soon.

    A judge ruled last week, that the fencing must come down by Tuesday. Monday morning, bulldozers were in position to potentially begin taking the fencing down.

    ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

    The village sued to have the 8-foot fence removed, saying it posed a public safety hazard because it blocks emergency responders.

    SEE ALSO | Chicago federal intervention: Tracking surge in immigration enforcement operations | Live updates

    RELATED | Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Trump admin. from deploying National Guard in Illinois

    Copyright © 2025 WLS-TV. All Rights Reserved.

    [ad_2]

    WLS

    Source link